Comets are notoriously unpredictable and unstable so I disagree with your celestial mechanics
On Friday, February 15, 2013, Vorl Bek wrote: > On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:04:27 -0500 > Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Vorl Bek <vorl....@antichef.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > And when was the one before that? > > > > > > > No one knows when the last one was. It might have hit the Pacific. The > > population was lower. But you are missing the point. Celestial mechanics > > are highly predictable. The first thing to determine is how many there > are > > and how soon the next one will hit. > > We already know that the next one that hits will almost certainly > be far in the future. We know that because there are no records, as > far as I know, of hits before the Tunguska rock; and lower > population or not, there would have been records if the rocks had > hit frequently enough for us to be worrying about a 'next' > occurrence. > > > > > > Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on spaceguard' to > > > prevent something that will almost certainly never happen? > > > > > > > 1. You cannot know the certainty level. That's what we have to find out. > > See above. > > > > > 2. It will cost billions but not trillions. > > > > 3. It will certainly create new knowledge and benefit science. It is > worth > > it for that reason alone. > > You don't have to spend billions on something that is not going to > happen in order to benefit science; spend it on better batteries, > better solar panels, even this 'lenr' stuff. > >
